Some respect for posters please Wellsy, L'Angelo will have you........
Sometimes I'm a little bit "too the point", but I stand by them.
The first post you quote was about a completely incoherent rant with many points made being untrue or just not thought through.
The quote about your post, I genuinely thought you were drunk. It certainly wasn't the same sort of thing you type, as at least your usually just having an opinion. On that case, your facts were just completely wrong.
Having mulled over your idea I think it's a good idea at times to have some intense local rivalry. We see this working well at Saints/Wigan.
However as a policy for the future you have to remember that a real rivalry is perhaps born of years of the two clubs competing closely, the Hull and the Sants/Wigan derbies can be traced back many many years.
So you can't really invent these rivalries, often based on false "hatreds". As many posters agreed on here the third "best" derby Leeds.v.Bradford actually has no real historical basis, and besides the crowds peaking very high for this derby they have somewhat now fallen away sharply. It is just another game and the hype wasn't swallowed for long.
Of course false or not Derby's do attract good gates, but I do think you need to split any "Derby" factor from the fact that the away fans in many cases may have shorter journeys than the home fans.That's a strength of M62 Rugby - games are accessible to away supporters. Having said that is it a good policy to continue for the future?
I don't think so because all it would do is concentrate the pro game along the M62.
If Rugby League wants a rivalry factor that stirs people to come to games then the perfect one for the future has to be such as England.v.Wales.v.France. Currently the M62 terraces empty as the Catalans or Crusaders pop up the Motorway, but league has to hope that one day clubs coming from other countries will be what stirs the interest rather than a club from the mill town popping over the hill to the mining village.
I think we saw a few years back a policy of promoting RL along the "derby" lines and we saw derbies in the Millenium Magic being actually engineered. Again the only two that worked were the usual two, but even then playing each other in league, cup, play off and then millenium magic simply dilutes and makes these games just another game rather than an event. I'm sure when Notts county finally manage to bump into Notts forest there'll be a stirring of interest on the derby factor, but the derby "policy" in RL has really been there, done it, not as important as other policies.
All very good points, particularly the part about rivalries being born out of history rather than manufactured. This is in itself is an argument for having clubs spend some time at a lower level and developing these sort of rivalries rather than just throwing them in at the top with nothing interesting about them.
Your points about Bradford are fair, although their drop from the top half of the league could have more to do with why that rivalry went by the wayside. At the time, they were the two most successful clubs in West Yorkshire as well as the two best supported. Perhaps the number of clubs concentrated in the same area is the reason why this rivalry has been based on success of the two best clubs in the area (i.e. if one ends up being rubbish, it goes to the next club).
The Saints/Wigan derby works best for me, that's the one. Of course everyone in Hull can disagree and that's fine. The Hull derby certainly doesn't work when every time you go to Craven Park the crowd is sub 10,000. No point making excuses, it doesn't work half the time and that is a fact and not a "weird opinion". I also believe that the Hull (home) derby works tremendously well, but can't stop thinking how good it would be if all those good young Hull lads were all in one side, and the best imports were attracted to the club which in turn had 20,000 gates for every match rather than just one. Not my club, not my City and if one lucrative game a year is a good policy to you then fine.
The Saints/Wigan derby works better because they are both more successful clubs and have been for the best part of the SL era and even many years before that, so there is always more of an interest from the neutral as it usually affects who is going to win the competition. The Hull derby at the moment is different as it hasn't really decided anything significant in the game, yet still brings in a huge amount of interest regardless. If they had the success of Saints and Wigan then the interest would change significantly.
At the moment, there is little we can do about Craven Park being small. That's just RL grounds for you. They aren't all big. You can "only" get 17k into Saints, but you could get over 20k in both Leeds and Bradford's grounds. Did it make one more interesting than the other? It's just one of them things.
I don't understand why you would say it "doesn't work" either? What doesn't work about it? How is that a fact?
And again, you keep harking on about this "one Hull side" and what it would be like. Rovers weren't in the SL for nearly a decade of the time Hull were. We still attract the overseas players. We still produce youngsters. We're still an average side. But we make more money and have much larger crowds than we've ever had in our history since they came back. It's a nice theory to think that adding two clubs together will make one super club, but it rarely does. There are many other factors.
I won't call you drunk or suggest your a ranter.
...but you will tell me I'm "looking up my own bum". Respect is a two way street. You lost a lot of people's respect when you decided to troll a few months back. And you didn't start your discussion with me on this thread in the most respectful of ways, so if you want me to show you respect then I expect you to show me the same. I aren't bothered either way.